Subject: [Curdle] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:45:05 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Joel for his OpsDir review.

I have a few comments / readability suggestions:
1: Section 5.1.  Statistical Biases
"These attacks seem to rely on repeated encryptions of thousands of copies of
the same plaintext; " -- for a document which deprecates rc4-hmac the "seem to
rely on" feels very weak. I'd suggest s/seem// or "At least some of these
attacks rely on..." or similar.

2: Section 6.  3DES Weakness
"Additionally, the 3DES encryption types were never implemented in all Kerberos
implementations..." s/never/not/

3:  Section 6.3.  Interoperability
"The triple-DES encryption types were implemented by MIT Kerberos
   early in its development (ca. 1999) and present in the 1.2 release,
   but encryption types 17 and 18 (AES) were implemented by 2003 and
   present in the 1.3 release."
I'm a bit confused by the "but" - should this be "and"? Otherwise it sounds
like it it trying to contrast something.

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 17:52:08 -0500

Hi Warren,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-curdle-des-des-des-die-die-die/

Sure, accepted.

> implementations..." s/never/not/

Accepted.

> like it it trying to contrast something.

The intent is more along the lines of "but they were superseded when",
so I'll make that change in my working copy.

Thanks for the suggestions!

-Ben